From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:49:22 -0600

Is there a list of these 100 registered reviewers publicly posted
anywhere?  And why are reviewers "registered" anyway? Normally, a
journal goes to find the best reviewer anywhere, not just limit the
selection to a predetermined list.  For a journal that claims to cover
all of the social sciences, 100 would seem to be a severely inadequate
number to draw upon.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:11:53 +0000
>
> Stevan:  A correction: as the press release and our editorial policy
> make clear, we carry out a full peer review. We also have over 100
> registered referees.
>
> Dan Scott
>
> On 14 Dec 2012, at 01:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:23:13 -0500
>>
>>  Here is the kind of "membership" deal Nottingham has just signed:
>>
>>  "All you can publish" for a year, from a no-track-record journal with
>>  Mr William Martin Modrow and Mr Dan Scott as its editors and a team of
>>  web-recruited volunteers.
>>
>>  For years I and others had been repeating: "The purpose of OA is to
>>  free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free research
>>  from peer review."
>>
>>  Finch's folly looks like it's instead steering (some) UK institutions
>>  toward the latter.
>
>  >
>  > Lay back, consider social science research, and think of England...
>  >
>  > Stevan Harnad